Connect with us
DNV Decarbonization Insight Series August 2026 - What maritime professionals should know about AI Training

Analysis

INSIGHT: Mitigate cost and risk with bunker fuel hedging approaching IMO 2020

With 0.5% marine fuel, HSFO, ULSFO contracts, operators do not just have to accept whatever costs the 2020 changes throw at them, advises Freight Investor Services.

Admin

Published

on

5b73aeb166f73 1534308017

In the second of two articles on the 2020 sulphur cap changes, Chris Hudson of Freight Investor Services (FIS) takes a look at the response of the refining industry and how the derivatives market is also adapting.

I’m sitting here writing this wearing a ‘Keep Calm and Keep on Shipping’ T shirt, and that’s definitely the attitude to take. After outlining the legislation and some solutions in the previous two articles, and now looking at the options open to the refining industry, we are sure that things are not going to be as cataclysmic as some people have predicted.

This said, the refining industry has a big responsibility in ensuring that there is a smooth transition to the new 0.5% sulphur grade fuel oil, something in which it got no say at IMO. This will be no small feat to achieve, requiring a huge change, not only to the refining process, but the whole chain from crude acquisition to product distribution.

It will be a difficult balancing act to achieve a smooth transition into 2020. It is estimated that global maritime consumption of high sulphur fuel oil will be at 240 million tonnes, before then dropping dramatically to 45 million tonnes come 2020. To be able achieve this level of demand before switching product will require careful management and planning, not only in production, but distribution and storage. I do not envy those whose task it is to achieve it.

There are several ways that the refining industry can prepare to meet the demand for lower sulphur content: they can use lower sulphur ‘sweeter’ crudes, upgrade refinery capabilities (such as ENI’s EST hydrocracking process), or by blending.

The first option will be sweet music to the ears of U.S. crude producers which could see their product even more in demand from refiners. This, of course, will be true of other sweeter crude producers like Brent and Saharan Blend and will push up the premium for this crude as fuel oil demand grows. It’s no surprise then to read that the discount for sour crudes compared to Brent is likely to move from about $6 discount to $10 or more in 2020, before reducing again as refineries increase their ability to process sourer crudes into the new decade.

The limitations of world crude supply mean this is by no means a long-term fix, but it may explain how the sudden demand for lower sulphur product can be satisfied. This could mean a higher premium on fuels from areas using this method to produce lower sulphur fuel, with refiners passing on higher costs to end users and perhaps this is the cost the shipping industry will have to pay to get past this unprecedented environmentally-driven shift.

Thinking industry-wide, the upgrading of refining capabilities is the more preferable but longer-term option. This option, however, will require the most planning and highest capital outlay. Upgrading the world’s refineries will take time and money, but time is something that we are very short of, as any upgrades will have needed approval months ago to be complete in time for 2020.

A good analysis of world refining capability and where the new fuel oil is going to be needed can be made by comparing expected demand growth and refining complexity in the different regions. Currently Asia, Europe, and North America make up some 44%, 22%, 13% respectively of world fuel oil demand. They are also the three areas that have above average refining complexity (in other words able to best respond to changes in demand – all are above seven on the Avg Nelson Complexity Index). This puts the industry in a good position to be able to deal with the changes in areas of the highest demand.

One example of refinery upgrading is the St Croix refinery, which has just received $1.4 million in investment to restart specifically to meet the demand for 0.5% fuel. This refinery will have the ability to convert lower cost heavier crudes to the required sulphur level or lower, and process some 200,00 barrels per day.

The last option for those who do not have the ability to use sweeter crude or to upgrade refineries is to blend their usual high sulphur fuel oil output with other products to ensure that it meets the requirements of the new regulations.

There have been reported several different grades of 0.5% fuel under development by some oil majors. BP has announced that it is developing an aromatic 163cst and a paraffinic 218cst grade; ExxonMobil is developing several grades for NW Europe, Mediterranean, Singapore and an expected U.S. Gulf grade; CEPSA has opted for a single 200cst 0.5% blend; other majors have not released any specifics on the grades they are developing.

This approach does seem the most labour intensive and hardest in terms of achieving stability and consistency of products due to the different blends produced from multiple grades of fuel. It is expected that this approach will push up premiums for distillates as demand increases for blending.
In general, it’s clear that the refining industry has its work cut out to get the required fuel ready for January 2020. Be it using sweet crude, refinery upgrades or blends there are plenty of options to ensure a roll-out of compliant fuel to replace HSFO.

What happens in terms of the other difficulties of distribution and storage are more unknown, and there will, of course, be some hiccups on the road to an orderly introduction of the regulations. Buyers need to be aware of the options and there should be contingency planning in case 0.5% fuel oil isn’t available where and when it is needed.

The changes in the physical grades and flow will, of course, cause a necessary change in all the associated industries from port infrastructure to insurance. At FIS our speciality is fuel oil hedging solutions for end user clients, so we will take a look at the developing paper market with respect to the low sulphur fuel switchover and what options these end users have.

I think it is fair to say that there is currently no perfect hedge for potential 2020 fuel risk, with the exception of continuing to use HSFO on scrubber-fitted vessels (or in the case of non-compliance).
For operators planning on using HSFO, the tried and trusted HSFO derivatives contract will give the perfect solution for being able to guarantee the costs of the fuel well into 2020.  Currently everyone dislikes you, but at least you’re sorted. 

For the majority of people their solution for the new IMO regulations will be using a blended 0.5% fuel oil, for which currently there are no direct equivalent paper contracts. To do so presents a choice for those who are looking to mitigate their fuel price risk in upcoming years. But, like squeezing into that pair of jeans from your 20s, those looking to hedge immediately will need to consider some slightly ill-fitting proxy trades.

For a proxy hedge most counterparties have looked at a lower sulphur content fuel such as the gasoil contracts in Rotterdam and Singapore respectively. The two most used contracts are the Rotterdam 0.1% Gasoil and the Singapore Gasoil 10ppm contracts, making them overly compliant, but they are liquid, correlated, and tradeable today. You’ll have to pay a pretty penny in premiums over both HSFO and the expected cost of 0.5% LSFO, but at least you will be able to sleep soundly at night knowing your hedge is on and working.

If you are able to sit on your hands for a few more months (which I suspect will be the position of the majority), then there will be specific 0.5% contracts coming into existence at the start of next year. Platts proposes to begin publishing new price assessments for RMG 380 CST marine fuel cargoes with a maximum sulphur limit of 0.5%, for loading in Singapore, Fujairah and Houston, and barges in Rotterdam, starting January 2, 2019.

And like the world’s best pick ’n’ mix for traders there will also be the corresponding spreads between the current high sulphur and these new low sulphur contracts. The FIS contact details are the bottom of this article, so do get in touch to get set up to hit the ground hedging once these new contracts are operational.

With this in mind, there a several ways to approach hedging exposure; proxy gasoil trades; wait and directly hedge the 0.5% contract, hedge the HSFO contract now and then use the spread to roll it into ULSFO contract when it is introduced.

Each solution is specific to each client and the level of risk or premium they are happy to accept, but at least there are some options available, and operators do not just have to accept whatever costs the 2020 changes throw at them.

As a specialist broker of fuel oil derivatives – as well as wet and dry forward freight agreements – at FIS we have the expertise to help devise and execute whatever hedging strategy works best to keep you ahead of the pack for the 2020 switchover.

Chris Hudson is a Fuel Oil & Tanker FFA Broker at Freight Investor Services (FIS).

Founded in 2002, Freight Investor Services is a specialist in dry bulk and commodity derivatives, including freight, iron ore, fertilizer and bunker fuel. The company has offices in London, Dubai, Singapore and Shanghai.

For further details about fuel oil swaps or to discuss trading opportunities, please contact the fuel oil desk on +44 207 090 1134 or [email protected].

Related: INSIGHT 2020: Refining the Issue

Published: 15 August, 2018
 

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel

Alkagesta highlights key insights on European choke point pressures in August

Update covers dual supply crisis currently shaping global bunker markets — a stalled Strait of Hormuz peace process and Rhine water levels at a 140-year record low — and the implications for Singapore.

Admin

Published

on

By

Alkagesta

Malta-based global commodity trading house Alkagesta recently shared latest market insight examining the dual supply crisis gripping global energy markets as diplomatic efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz stall and Rhine water levels fall to record lows, creating what the company describes as a “state of emergency” for European inland fuel distribution.

In an article published on Alkagesta Market Insights on 11 August, the company’s trading and market intelligence teams outlined how the convergence of two simultaneous logistical crises is tightening prompt fuel availability across Singapore, Northwest Europe, and the Mediterranean:

Strait of Hormuz transits fell to a near-one-month low of 13 ships on August 9 following an attack on an ADNOC-linked tanker, as both the US and Iran demand war reparations before any reopening agreement can be reached. Simultaneously, Rhine water levels at the Kaub chokepoint fell to 16 cm on August 10 — the lowest since records began in 1880 — with forecasts pointing to a further drop to just 4 cm by August 14, effectively halting barge traffic and trapping fuel oil stocks at the ARA hub.

The supply picture across both key hubs has deteriorated sharply. In Singapore, Middle Eastern fuel oil imports nearly tripled week-over-week to 328,878 mt by July 29 — the highest volume since March — providing some relief as onshore commercial heavy distillate stocks rose to a five-week high of 19.58 million barrels by August 5. However, July bunker fuel sales are estimated to have fallen 3.7% month-over-month to 4.44 million mt, with elevated premiums redirecting prompt demand toward alternative ports including Zhoushan and Port Klang.

In Europe, the VLSFO market remains acutely undersupplied as refiners continue to prioritize high-margin diesel over low-sulfur blending components, while the Rhine crisis has forced barges to operate at just 15–20% of normal capacity — with freight rates from Rotterdam to Karlsruhe rising more than 400% in two months.

Alkagesta’s strategic outlook points to a potential total breakdown in Rhine-linked inland distribution by mid-August, a VLSFO Hi-5 spread likely to remain above $200/mt through Q3, and a global crude market that analysts warn requires an additional 2.1 million b/d for 18 months to rebuild depleted inventories.

Note: The full article can be read here.

 

Photo credit: Alkagesta
Published: 17 August, 2026

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel

Integr8 Fuels: Why bunker markets could be lower than we thought

Marine fuel prices could prove lower than previously anticipated as easing refinery margins and improving bunker market fundamentals outweigh a still-uncertain crude oil outlook, says Integr8 Fuels.

Admin

Published

on

By

6 5

By Steve Christy, Expert Contributor, Integr8 Fuels

29 July 2026

We have just seen one false dawn, is there another to come? 

Last month, we wrote about how close we were to the expected lows in Brent and Rotterdam bunker prices, but not yet Singapore. Given what has happened since, a month is not only a long time in politics, but also a very long time in the bunker market. 

There was a resumption of attacks in the Arabian Gulf region on 13 July, followed by targeted Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea oil infrastructure and shipping in the Bab el-Mandeb region, the gateway between the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. As a result, Brent futures fell to lows of around $70/bbl in late June and early July before surging to a high of $100/bbl on 23 July. Over the same period, Singapore VLSFO fell to $635/mt before climbing to $865/mt, a swing of $230/mt in just 16 days. 

Jul 2026 Graph 01 1024x613 1

Prices at the start of this week fell sharply after a halt in Arabian Gulf attacks over the weekend, with front month Brent was down to intra-day lows of $84/bbl, and Singapore VLSFO $750/mt.  However, at the time of writing there has been a ‘surprise’ attack by Iran, and retaliatory action by the US, with prices rising again.  It looks like we could be at another false dawn. 

The obvious questions are: will there be a return to peace negotiations, and are we close to the end of the war and free-flowing traffic through the strait of Hormuz (and also the Bab el-Mandeb)? The obvious answer is, we don’t know; there are only a few people that are likely to know the answer to this. All we can do is plan for every eventuality. 

Low stocks, higher bunker prices, and a strong Singapore VLSFO premium: it’s a challenge 

For those of us in the bunker market, the point we made last month about Singapore VLSFO trading at a strong premium to crude still holds, albeit slightly less pronounced. The loss of supplies through the Strait of Hormuz, together with the added uncertainty surrounding Saudi product exports from the Jizan and Rabigh refineries on the Red Sea, has sustained this premium. 

These developments are likely to keep the Singapore VLSFO premium to crude at elevated levels until there is greater confidence that Middle East crude and product supplies are returning to more normal trading patterns. Amid all the price volatility, this Singapore VLSFO premium remains a key indicator to watch. 

Backwardation in Brent futures illustrates market psychology 

One month ago, backwardation in Brent futures (front month minus second month) had fallen from $7/bbl to virtually nothing, reflecting the market’s belief that an end to the war was little more than a negotiating step away. It wasn’t. The resumption of attacks, coupled with Houthi involvement in the Red Sea, sent prices sharply higher again, with backwardation in the Brent futures market returning to almost $6/bbl. 

Jul 2026 Graph 02 1024x572 1

The halt in attacks over the past weekend has taken steam out of the market, with prices and backwardation falling sharply. Where we go from here depends if there is again a belief peace is on the horizon, or if this is another false dawn. The past month highlights how impossible it is to predict an ending to the war, and how fragile any expectations of peace can be. 

We cannot ignore the price, but still must look to the future

It is impossible to write a report and not highlight the turmoil of the current market and what is happening. However, we still must look beyond this, to see where we could end up. 

In an earlier report, we suggested the run-up to the US mid-term elections in November may be a backstop to the war. However, even this is not guaranteed. There are many dynamic elements to the economy and voter intentions, but one feature that will always crop up in the US is the gasoline price. This has risen from $3/gallon before the war to over $4/gallon for the past four months. 

Jul 2026 Graph 03 1024x570 1

If it comes to it, will Republican voters want to see a resolution to the war and a return to $3 gasoline prices ahead of the elections? 

We have a change of heart on how low bunker prices can go

We don’t know exact timings, but in any planning, we must look at what happens when the war does finally end and prices fall, whenever that may be. In past reports we have highlighted the view that Brent crude prices are unlikely to fall back to pre-war levels in the $60s, and Singapore VLSFO unlikely to go back in to the $400s. This may be the point at which these views change.

Previous thinking was based on a relatively short war, where there would be a large loss of oil supply and a massive stock-draw. In this case, tighter stock levels would be sufficient to keep prices higher than their pre-war levels once we returned to ‘normality’. This would mean Brent futures in the $70s (and not in the $60s), and Singapore VLSFO in the $500s, and not the $400s.

A number of mainstream analysts also held this view, although there were some that were lower and some higher.

Given the war has already gone on for much longer than almost everyone expected, this thinking must change. Yes, global stocks have been drawn down at a rapid rate, but this is slowing. Higher pricing and inflationary blows have had a major impact on global oil demand, with current indications that total oil demand in the second quarter of this year was some 4 million b/d lower than year earlier levels.

The graph below shows this sharp drop in demand and even if the war comes to an end relatively soon, and demand gets back towards some normality, a structural loss of more than 1 million b/d in global oil demand is still expected to have taken place because of the extended period of conflict.

If the war goes on for even longer, structural losses in global oil demand are likely to be even greater.

Jul 2026 Graph 04 1024x579 1

Source: US EIA

It’s a hard road, but we can get there

This means that once the war does end, market psychology will be looking at a rapid increase in oil supplies going into a global market which is much lower in demand.  This opens the way for prices to easily return to their pre-war levels of Brent in the $60s and Singapore VLSFO in the $400s. 

Now we just need those at the centre of negotiations to get us there.

 

Photo credit and source: Integr8 Fuels
Published: 30 July, 2026

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel Quality

FOBAS report warns of growing operational risks from ISO-compliant bunker fuels

LR’s latest FOBAS Fuel Quality Report reveals that the biggest fuel quality risks are no longer confined to off-specification fuels, with some compliant fuels creating operational challenges.

Admin

Published

on

By

New FOBAS report warns growing operational risks from ISO-compliant bunker fuels

Classification society Lloyd’s Register (LR) on Tuesday (14 July) warned that ship operators are facing a growing risk from fuels that appear compliant under routine ISO 8217 testing but still present operational risks once onboard.

According to LR’s latest Fuel Oil Bunker Analysis and Advisory Service (FOBAS) Fuel Quality Report, covering the first half of 2026, off-specification fuels remain a persistent challenge. 

However, some of the most disruptive cases now involve fuels that pass routine compliance testing but show poor stability or compatibility, or contain non-conventional blend components that are only identified through more detailed investigative analysis.

Several incidents investigated highlighted this trend. In March and April, a number of vessels reported operational difficulties after bunkering fuel in a major bunkering hub. Further forensic analysis found that many of the fuels contained elevated concentrations of Estonian shale oil, in some cases estimated to be around 10-15%.

While shale oil is recognised within ISO 8217 as an acceptable blend component, FOBAS investigations found that higher concentrations can be associated with fuel instability and operational issues affecting filters, separators and fuel pumps.

The report also shows that fuel quality variability remains stubbornly high. Off-specification cases remained elevated throughout the first six months of 2026, suggesting that quality issues are no longer isolated events but a more persistent feature of today’s marine fuel supply chain.

The most common recurring issues included sulphur exceedances, excessive water content, sediment and stability problems, elevated catalytic fines, sodium contamination and low flash point distillate fuels.

At the same time, biofuels (especially FAME blends) are continuing to grow without being a primary source of quality issues. Where issues occurred in blended fuels, they were generally associated with the conventional VLSFO component rather than the FAME fraction.

The report concluded that operators will need to adopt a more proactive approach to fuel management as marine fuels become more diverse and fuel quality risks become harder to identify through routine compliance testing alone.

Greater emphasis on fuel stability, compatibility and understanding fuel composition will be critical to reducing operational disruption and maintaining vessel performance.

Murray Kirkwood, Fuel Specialist Consultant, Lloyd’s Register, said: “The findings from our latest report show that fuel quality risk is evolving. The challenge is no longer simply identifying fuels that fail specification. Increasingly, operators are encountering fuels that meet the required limits but still create operational difficulties once they are stored, handled and used onboard.

“As fuel blending becomes more complex, the distinction that matters is increasingly not between on-spec and off-spec fuel, but between fuels that are operationally resilient and fuels that are operationally fragile. Understanding that difference is becoming essential for shipowners and operators.”

The latest findings reinforced FOBAS’ long-standing view that effective fuel management increasingly depends on understanding fuel behaviour rather than relying solely on pass-or-fail specification testing.

By combining routine fuel quality monitoring with forensic investigation of operational incidents, FOBAS provides shipowners with a clearer understanding of emerging fuel quality risks as the industry continues its transition to a more diverse and complex fuel landscape.

Note: The FOBAS Fuel Insight: Fuel Quality Report H1 2026 is available at FOBAS Fuel Insight: Fuel quality reports | LR

 

Photo credit: Lloyd’s Register
Published: 15 July, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending